Barnes’ Notes,
for example, note (Barnes 1983): “He
was before me. This can refer to
nothing but his preexistence, and can be explained only on the supposition that
he existed before John, or, as the evangelist had before shown, from the
beginning.”
[1]

So how would a unitarian explain
these verses?

First one might note the contrast between ἔμπροσθεν
‘in front of’ and
πρῶτος
‘first in a sequence’. Both words—especially the latter—can denote rank. There
is also a difference in verbs:
γέγονεν ‘has
become’ versus
ἦν
‘was’. Thus John 1:15 can be
interpreted,

But why would Jesus appear humbly
before John because (ὅτι)
he was of higher office than John? Maybe it’s because, as he said (Mat 20:27),
“And whosoever will be chief [πρῶτος]
among you, let him be your servant …”

The Scriptures love a riddle and a
play on words, and here I would suggest that John is linking three things: birth
order, the fact that the younger has come to the elder, and the higher rank that
Jesus had from the beginning.[3]
John, of course, deferred in the same way
to Jesus (John 3:28): “Ye yourselves bear me witness,
that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him [ἔμπροσθεν
ἐκείνου].”

John was not the Messiah, rather (John
1:23), “He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make
straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.”
[4] Jesus, on the other hand, was set apart
[5] for that office (John 1:32-33): “And John bare record,
saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon
him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same
said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on
him, the same is he which baptizeth [with holy spirit (ἐν
πνεύματι ἁγίῳ)].”

How was the dove a sign of the
Messiah?

Sometimes it
is amazing how much the New Testament and Chazal
[6] are mirrors
of each other. In the Midrash the spirit is associated with the role of messiah
son of Joseph and the waters with the waters of repentance (Genesis Rabbah
2:4):

וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת

“And the Spirit of God moved …”
(Genesis 1:2)

זֶה
רוּחוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶ הַמָּשִׁיחַ

This is the spirit of
the King Messiah,

הֵיאַ מַה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר

as it says (Isaiah
11:2),

וְנָחָה עָלָיו רוּחַ ה׳

“And
the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him …”

בְּאֵיזוֹ זְכוּת מְמַשְׁמֶשֶׁת וּבָאָה

In what merit is there
hastening when he will come?

הַ׳מְרַחֶפֶת עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם

The “moved
upon the face of the waters”

בִּזְכוּת הַתְּשׁוּבָה

is in the merit of
repentance,

שֶׁנִּמְשְׁלָה כְמַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר

which is likened to
water, as it says (Lamentations 2:19),

שִׁפְכִי כַמַּיִם לִבֵּ

“…pour
out thine heart like water …”

And
again the spirit of Messiah is likened to a dove [יוֹנָה]
(Babylonian Talmud,
Chagiga 15a):

וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם

“And the
Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (Gen 1:2)

כְּיוֹנָה שֶׁמְּרַחֶפֶת עַל בָּנֶיהָ

Like a dove which hovers over her children

וְאֵינָהּ נוֹגַעַת

and does not touch them

The name Jonah (יוֹנָה)
means ‘dove’. And according to Pirqe d’Rabbi Eliezer (פרקי
דרבי אליעזר ג), “By
virtue of a righteous woman the dead are destined to live [מִכֹּחַ
צַדֶּקֶת הַמֵּתִים עֲתִידִין לִחְיוֹת],”
and this virtuous woman is here identified as none
other than the widow whose son was raised from the dead (1Kings 17): “She was
the mother of Jonah [אִמּוֹ
שֶׁל יוֹנָה הָיְתָה].” And
then Tosefot (בבא
מציעא קיד ב) says of this
child, “The sign of the boy was messiah son of Joseph [אוֹתוֹ
תִּינוֹק מָשִׁיחַ בֶּן יוֹסֵף הָיָה].”
Thus the resurrection of this boy was viewed as a forerunner or sign of
the resurrection of the house of Israel, this just as Jesus claimed only the
sign of the prophet Jonah (Mat 12:39-40): “An evil and adulterous generation
seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of
the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s
belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of
the earth.”
[7]

As in the Midrash where the spirit
is the spirit of messiah and the waters are the waters of repentance, so also
for John (Mat
3:11): “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh
after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall
baptize you [with holy spirit and fire (ἐν
πνεύματι ἁγίῳ
καὶ
πυρί)].” And when Jesus
was about to ascend to heaven he tells his talmidim (Acts 1:5), “For John
truly baptized with water; [but ye shall be baptized with holy spirit (ὑμεῖς
δὲἐν
πνεύματι βαπτισθήσεσθε ἁγίῳ)]
not many days hence.” And so they were (Acts 2:3-4): “And there appeared unto
them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were
all filled with [spirit of the Holy One (πνεύματος
ἁγίου)],
and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”

This was the first outflow of the
spirit of a new covenant that ultimately repatriates the lost sheep of the house
of Israel (Jer 31:33): “But this shall be the covenant that I will make
with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in
their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and
they shall be my people.”

And the “cloven tongues like as of
fire”—these recall Moses’ last blessing (Deut 33:1-2): “And this is the
blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before
his death. And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto
them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of
saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.”

When we come to the Scriptures we begin with
certain premises and go on to interpret accordingly. If we begin with
preexistence then we look for passages that might confirm this premise. If we
believe that the Tanakh (Old Testament) demands a man as messiah and not
the avatar of an angel or other spirit—and if we wish to uphold the New
Testament in light of the Old—then we look for verses that confirm that.
Because the Bible is written with riddles and types and symbols, each side of a
controversy always ends up with a residue of “difficult scriptures”—what the one
uses for support the other will have to “explain”. If John 1:15, 30 can support
preexistence, then all that the other side has to do is show that these verses
can also be explained another way.

Without Father, Without Mother,
Without Descent

Once when the author of Hebrews
mentions
Melchizedek, he then
cites what seems like a kind of rabbinical aphorism or midrashic saying (Heb 7:3):

ἀπάτωρ,
ἀμήτωρ,
ἀγενεαλόγητος,

Without father, without mother, without
descent,

μήτε ἀρχὴν
ἡμερῶν
μήτε ζωῆς
τέλος ἔχων,

having neither beginning of days, nor end of
life;

ἀφωμοιωμένος
δὲ
τῶ
υἱῶ
τοῦ
θεοῦ,

but made like unto the Son of God;

μένει ἱερεὺς
εἰς
τὸ
διηνεκές.

abideth a priest continually.

Now if one insists on
taking the Greek literally and chooses to ignore the possibility that
Melchizedek is here some kind of symbolic archetype, then of course this speaks
of a preexistent being. And if one is looking for a preexistent Jesus in
Genesis, this might be the place. Nevertheless the Peshitta makes the
typological interpretation explicit—it is not that Melchizedek is actually
immortal but that Genesis 14 makes no mention of his mortality (Heb 7:3 - James
Murdock’s translation):

ܕ݁ܠܳܐ ܐܰܒ݂ܽܘܗ݈ܝ ܘܠܳܐ
ܐܶܡܶܗ

Of whom neither his
father nor his mother

ܐܶܬ݂ܟ݁ܬ݂ܶܒ݂ܘ ܒ݁ܫܰܪܒ݂ܳܬ݂ܳܐ

are written in the
genealogies;

ܘܠܳܐ ܪܺܝܫܺܝܬ݂ܳܐ ܕ݁ܝܰܘܡܰܘܗ݈ܝ

nor the commencement of
his days,

ܘܠܳܐ ܫܽܘܠܳܡܳܐ
ܕ݁ܚܰܝܰܘܗ݈ܝ

nor the end of his life;

ܐܶܠܳܐ ܒ݁ܰܕ݂ܡܽܘܬ݂ܳܐ ܕ݁ܰܒ݂ܪܶܗ ܕ݁ܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ

but, after the likeness
of the Son of God,

ܡܩܰܘܝܳܐ ܟ݁ܽܘܡܪܽܘܬ݂ܶܗ ܠܥܳܠܰܡ ܀

his priesthood remaineth
for ever.

Melchizedek
is mentioned only in Genesis 14 and Psalms 110, and thus the rabbinical
commentators have seen the Psalm as a Midrash on Genesis.[8]
The account in Hebrews also connects Genesis 14.

Whither the forerunner is for us entered,
even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of
Melchisedec. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most
high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and
blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being
by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of
Salem, which is, King of peace;

Without father, without mother, without
descent,

having neither beginning of days, nor end of
life;

but made like unto the Son of God;

abideth a priest continually.

Now consider how great this man was,
unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
Hebrews 6:20-7:4

Tradition says that Melchizedek
was Shem, and one can deduce as much from Scripture, for thus Noah speaks to
Shem’s elder brother[9]
(Gen 9:27), “… and he [God, as it can be read] shall dwell in the tents of Shem
…” And where are those tents? “In Salem also is his tabernacle ...”
(Psalms 76:3[2]) And where was Melchizedek a king and a priest? In Salem, as
it says (Genesis 14:18), “And Melchizedek king of Salem … and he was the
priest of the most high God.” [10]

In Hebrews it says (Heb 7:40),
“Now consider how great this man was,”[11]
which fits if Melchizedek were Shem and thus heir of Noah who had received the
kingship and priesthood from his ancestor Adam (Gen 14:19-20): “And he blessed
him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven
and earth ...”[12]
And thus it is also in our Midrash (Heb 7:7): “And without all contradiction the
less is blessed of the better.”

The book of Hebrews (Heb 6:20;
7:17) has κατὰ
τὴν
τάξιν Mελχισέδεκ
‘after the order [i.e., a priestly order, cf. Luke 1:8] of Melchizedek’, which
follows the Septuagint. The Hebrew of Psalms 110:4 might better be read,
“according to the word/decree of Melchizedek.”[13]
Either way the point is the same—that Abraham (and thus the patriarchs)
inherited Adam’s priesthood.

And thus Abraham receives Adam’s
mantle legitimately, first by the decree of Melchizedek (Psalms 110:4), and then
by an oath from God (Heb 6:13-14): “For when God made promise to Abraham,
because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying [Genesis
22:16], Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply
thee.” And thus our author uses this to say that the Adamic priesthood is
greater than the Levitical (Heb 7:21): “For those priests were made without an
oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him [Psalms 110:4], The Lord
sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
Melchisedec …”

But the legitimacy of Abraham as
heir (and Messiah through David back to Abraham) is only part of the argument
which is here twofold. It’s as in Paul’s opening to the book of Romans (Rom
1:3-4): “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,

üwhich was made of
the seed of David according to the flesh;

üAnd declared to
be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the
resurrection from the dead …”

Which brings us back to the
archetypal imagery in Hebrews 7:3: “…but made like unto the Son of God; abideth
a priest continually.”

And who is the son of God? Luke
3:38—“…Adam, which was the son of
God.”
[14]

The author of the book of Hebrews
is emphasizing, in a sophisticated rabbinical fashion, that though the kingship
is passed on via a genealogy, the sons of God are sons of the resurrection, just
as Jesus said (Luke 20:36), “Neither can they die any more: for they are equal
unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the
resurrection.”

And here a friend points me to the
first chapter of John’s Gospel where it is the Word/Torah that imparts the power
to become sons of God.

Thus the purpose of Hebrews 7:3
(“Without father, without mother”) is not to tell us that Melchizedek was
immortal, nor that Jesus preexisted as an immortal being, but that in order to
inherit the heavenly mantle of Adam, Jesus had to be born again, this time not
of human parentage but of God, i.e., become one of those (John 1:13) “Which were
born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God.” And again as he said (John 3:6), “That which is born of the flesh is
flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” As always the symbolism
goes back to Adam:

And so it is written [Gen 2:7], The first man
Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening
spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that
which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man
is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from
heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are
earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that
are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall
also bear the image of the heavenly. 1Corinthians 15:45-49

And it is not by father or mother
or genealogy but by the Word/Torah that we become the sons of God who (James
1:18), “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a
kind of firstfruits of his creatures.” Peter preaches the same (1Peter 1:23):
“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of
God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”

It is God’s word that creates a
clean heart in us—for isn’t that what the tabernacle washings symbolized? As
the author of the book says (Heb 10:22), “Let us draw near with a true heart in
full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience,
and our bodies washed with pure water.” And that should remind us of Ephesians
5:26—“That he might sanctify and cleanse it[17]
with the washing of water by the word …”

Much of the book of Hebrews is dedicated to
proclaiming that Jesus has pierced the veil of his mortality to serve as an
advance advocate for the rest of us not yet completely cleansed.
This was the proclamation when this section on Melchizedek was introduced (Heb
6:19-20): “Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and
stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; Whither the forerunner
is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the
order of Melchisedec.”

“For Christ is not entered into
the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but
into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us …” (Heb 9:24)

The author of Hebrews paints the
Melchizedek archetype as superior to the mortal Abraham (Heb 7:7), “And without
all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.” Why? Let me suggest this
is because Adam’s heritage—that with which Melchizedek is blessing Abraham—was
to eat of the tree of life and live forever (Gen 2:9). Even though Adam and Eve
were barred from it (Gen 3:22-24), the promise remained for the faithful of the
first millennium (Rev 2:7): “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the
tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” And it is
available to all in the end (Rev 22:14): “Blessed are they that do his
commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in
through the gates into the city.”

And this, let me also suggest, is
what Jesus was getting at when he would claim greatness.

Jesus claimed to be greater, for
example, than Solomon (Mat 12:42; Luke 11:31), “…and, behold, a greater than
Solomon is here.” Did he mean that he was greater because he preexisted
Solomon? As Jesus himself said (Luke 7:28), “For I say unto you, Among those
that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but
he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” And how do we
attain to the kingdom of God? Again as Jesus said (John 3:3, 6), “… Except a
man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. … Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” So let us
return to Paul who does not seem to think this is merely a metaphor for a
spiritual experience in the here and now.

Now this I say,
brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;
neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a
mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet
shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal
must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put
on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then
shall be brought to pass the saying that is written [Isaiah 25:8], Death
is swallowed up in victory. 1Corinthians 15:50-54

[7] See also Matthew 16:4 &
Luke 11:29. The Shem-Tob Matthew employs the same language as Chazal
(Howard 1988):
הָאוֹת שֶׁל יוֹנָה “the sign of Jonah’
which equals ‘the sign of a dove”. The word for ‘dove’ is the same—כְּיוֹנָה‘like a dove’ in the Talmud (Chagiga
15a) as also in the Shem-Tob of Matthew 3:16. For the other side
of the coin one is tempted to connect Hosea 7:11: “Ephraim also is like
a silly dove without heart [כְּיוֹנָה
פוֹתָה אֵין לֵב]: they call to Egypt,
they go to Assyria.”

[9] Shem was (Gen 10:21)
אֲחִי
יֶפֶת הַגָּדוֹל ‘the brother of
Japheth the elder’. The Hebrew here may be ambiguous—yet one might
still deduce this from Gen 5:32 where Noah was 500 years old when he
begat his sons, from Gen 7:6 where he was 600 when the flood was upon
the land, and from Gen 11:10 where Shem was 100 years old two years
after the flood.

[13]Rashi suggests that
דִּבְרָתִיin Psalms 110:4 is simply the construct of
דִּבְרָה ‘word’ but with an extra yod
(י)
just like
רַבָּתִי עָם ‘great of people’ in
Lamentations 1:1. Thus Rashi:

דִּבְרָתִי מַלְכִּי צֶדֶק

“… the word of Melchizedek.”

י"וד
יַתִּיר. כמ׳ רַבָּתִי עָם.

A superfluous yod. Just like
‘great of people’ (Lam 1:1)

עַל
דִּבְרָתִי מַלְכִּי צֶדֶק

“… according to the word of
Melchizedek.”

עַל
פְּקֻדַּת מַלְכִּי צֶדֶק.

because of the decree of Melchizedek.

The strict
literalist will likely say that either Hebrews errs by quoting a
mistranslation of the Septuagint or else that Rashi cannot be right.
But if the author of Hebrews is not “proof texting” but rather making a
Midrash, then anything can be used to illustrate his point. Here it
would be that melchizedek symbolizes a heavenly order (τάξις)
of priesthood.

[14]The genealogical
Ἀδὰμ
τοῦΘεοῦ
‘Adam of the God’ is rendered most
naturally into Hebrew as אָדָם
בֶּן אֱלֹהִים ‘Adam the son of God’,
as it is in Hebrew translations of Luke 3:38. Thus also was it put in
the Sinaitic Syriac, ܐܕܡ ܒܪ
ܐܠܗܐ ‘Adam the son of God’, though the
Peshitta has instead ܐܳܕ݂ܳܡ
ܕ݁ܡܶܢ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ‘Adam who was from God’.

[15] “Him” (αὐτόν)
references the word (ὁ
λόγος) which is the Bible, as it says (Isaiah 8:20), “To the law
and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word ...”

[16]According to the
lexicons
μονογενής does not mean ‘only
begotten’ [as if from γεννάω
‘beget, sire, father’, as in Heb 1:5;
5:5 from Psalms 2:7, ‘Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.’];
rather it is a compound of γένος
‘kind’ and as such might mean an only, a firstborn, or a chosen son. It
recalls Isaac in Heb 11:17: “… and he that had received the promises
offered up his only begotten [μονογενής
reflecting
יָחִיד in
Gen 22:2: ‘Take now thy son,
thine only (יְחִידְךָ)
son Isaac, whom thou lovest’]
…” This word may have had a messianic connotation in 1st
century Judaism, for according to the Jewish Encyclopedia (Bar Kokba
and Bar Kokba War), “It is singular that Syncellus also calls Bar
Kokba ‘an only son’ (μονογενής)
…”

[17] “It” (αὐτὴν)
being Eve, here figuratively the festal
assembly of the first resurrection (Rev 19:7-9; 20:1­5), as it says (Heb
12:23), “To the general assembly and church of the firstborn [πανηγύρει
καὶ
ἐκκλησίᾳ
πρωτοτόκων], which are written in
heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made
perfect …”